Thread

ICC judge on what U.S. sanctions mean for her and global courts

229 points · 173 comments · rbanffy

msdz · 1790961668 · focus · HN ↗
Regardless of what one personally thinks about the ICC, this isn’t a good look for neither the US nor Europe.
For the U.S., because sanctioning an “unpleasant”, but in essence harmless individual (geopolitically speaking) is ridiculous. Falling victim to de-banking alone can really ruin one’s life.
And for the EU, because it once again showcases the dependence on U.S. systems for just about anything tech-related in everyday life and work.
1. [deleted] · 1790962186 · focus · HN ↗
  [deleted]
2. wereHamster · 1790962253 · focus · HN ↗
  EU is not necessarily dependent on the US in all the cases that are listed in the article. Take AXA, the insurance company. They could probably survive doing business just in the EU and withdraw entirely out of the US market. But for them it's more lucrative to piss off one judge rather than lose the US share of profits. As the article describes, it's a business decision. But not one that necessarily means life or death (for the company).
  1. QDwQ1 · 1790962937 · focus · HN ↗
    EU politicians should grow some balls and force their companies to ignore US sanctions in cases like these
    msdz · 1790963113 · focus · HN ↗
    I’ve read that at least in the case of some EU banks, not following the foreign sanctions is quite literally not an option for them.
    If you don’t follow sanctions, other banks either with branches doing business in the U.S., or their partner banks, will refuse to continue banking with you out of fear for not following sanctions – which include banks enabling sanction-circumvention. Essentially, even if the bank doesn’t want to deal with USD (which most banks would still like to do!), you’re still bound by the sanctions. A bank won’t survive long or well if it’s cut off from a majority of other banks.
    RobotToaster · 1790964127 · focus · HN ↗
    Which is why it would need to be a law. The only option would be for the US to take the insane move of cutting off every bank in Europe. If they did actually do that, while it would be painful in the short term, it would be incredibly beneficial for Europe in the long term.
    cherryteastain · 1790964251 · focus · HN ↗
    This is just a case of carrot vs stick. European countries need to threaten their companies with an even bigger stick if they follow foreign sanctions.
    China does this via laws that say, if you do not provide services to Chinese citizens/entities citing foreign sanctions, they can send you to a gulag forever. Seems to be fairly effective, considering how heavily sanctioned Huawei is.
    jorvi · 1790964900 · focus · HN ↗
    This is why WERO and the digital Euro are so crucial. Once the EU has a separate financial backbone, they can tell the US to go pound sand.
    deaux · 1790964901 · focus · HN ↗
    After the last 2 years you _still_ haven't learnt that _everything_ like this is completely negotiable and can change tomorrow? That it's all might makes right? God, you must've been one of those people who in 2014 claimed it was unthinkable that a country would leave the EU, or took Trump's threats as fact even after his 20th TACO turn.
    All these hard "immediate consequences" scenarios are pure fiction. Not because they can't become truth, they can. But there's a hundred other possibilities. Literally sticking to the "letter of the law" is just one of them, and not a particularly likely one.
    HDThoreaun · 1790965356 · focus · HN ↗
    Chinese banks dont enforce american sanctions and it certainly hasnt ruined their banking system.
    beached_whale · 1790963871 · focus · HN ↗
    Canada did this for the Cuba sanctions years ago. There was/is a semi famous story about Walmart Canada and Cuban PJ's.
  2. abdullahkhalids · 1790963181 · focus · HN ↗
    My understanding from glancing at the hopefully correct sanctions statement [1] is that they are secondary in nature (see for example Sec 3). So the insurance company will face all the same sanctions that the ICC judge is facing if they serve them. They banks will cutoff the insurance company as well, because the banks themselves use US infrastructure.
    The only solution would be similar to what China exercised. The EU passes an order telling all EU entities to not comply with US sanctions or face legal problems. Then it comes down to how the US responds and whether EU can take that hit.
    [1] <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/imposing-sanctions-on-the-international-criminal-court/" rel="nofollow">https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/impo...
    RobotToaster · 1790964233 · focus · HN ↗
    > The only solution would be similar to what China exercised. The EU passes an order telling all EU entities to not comply with US sanctions or face legal problems
    Unfortunately, the fact that they haven't done this just makes the EU look like a paper tiger.
    microtonal · 1790965881 · focus · HN ↗
    The EU does not work like Trump, resolving issues through diplomacy is always the preferred first option. Trump also backed down from his Greenland threats after the EU messaged that it might employ the trade bazooka and some EU countries sent some army personnel to Greenland.
    They could have immediately activated the trade bazooka when Trump was threatening Greenland, but the slower diplomatic approach also worked and led to far less damage on both sides.
    laimewhisps · 1790966709 · focus · HN ↗
    Maybe for most things but the EU and Trump are both fully aligned on their Israel policy, which is what the ICC sanctions are about. You will not see the EU disagree with him here.
    nostrademons · 1790964994 · focus · HN ↗
    There's another possible outcome as well: commerce moves to the black market, which eventually inverts the traditional national sovereignty relationship such that people learn that if they want to get anything done safely, they do it over encrypted communication channels with cryptocurrencies, and eventually the rump states of "official" governments are seen as cosplayers fighting over a pageant that people pay lip service to but don't rely on anymore.
    The effect of these transitive sanctions is to create trading blocks. If you want to do business with the U.S, you don't do business with sanctioned entities. If other world powers (like China or the EU) want to negate the power of U.S. sanctions, they pass laws that people in their countries must not comply with U.S. sanctions or risk being sanctioned themselves. Now firms are stuck: if they comply with one set of sanctions they are in violation of another, and vice versa, and so it becomes impossible to comply with all of them. Their two options are: 1) comply with their local, national trading bloc and forego the benefits of globalization and trade or 2) become an outlaw, get the benefits of trade, but risk the ire of national authorities.
    #2 seems rather unthinkable right now, coming off the Pax Americana, but it was actually quite common during historical periods like the one we're headed into. That's the choice made by pirates during the 1600s; by American colonists in the 1770s; oftentimes by frontier settlers in ~1860s America; and by numerous non-state nations like Jews or Gypsies throughout history. Plus, the Internet and cryptocurrencies and VPNs and Tor and residential proxies all exist. The technology is there for a market state that crosses national boundaries, and the social conditions are building.
    Notice I said "outcome" rather than "solution", as I think people can see many things wrong with this. You'll kinda get whatever emerges, which probably is not an improvement on what we had from 1990-2020.
    microtonal · 1790965686 · focus · HN ↗
    The only solution would be similar to what China exercised. The EU passes an order telling all EU entities to not comply with US sanctions or face legal problems.
    There are strong calls from the EP now for the EC to prepare the blocking statute:
    <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/block-us-sanctions-on-the-icc-eu-lawmakers-tell-commission/" rel="nofollow">https://www.politico.eu/article/block-us-sanctions-on-the-ic...
    <a href="https://finance.ec.europa.eu/eu-and-world/open-strategic-autonomy/extraterritoriality-blocking-statute_en" rel="nofollow">https://finance.ec.europa.eu/eu-and-world/open-strategic-aut...
3. nostrademons · 1790963177 · focus · HN ↗
  It undermines the idea of the U.S. as a neutral arbiter for law, order, and free commerce. That may always have been a fiction, but it's a very useful fiction because it underpins U.S. soft power. It's much easier to get consent for being the world hegemon when you act like a benevolent, disinterested hegemon. Once you start becoming a participant - and overriding other institutions that are ostensibly providing neutral, impartial justice just because their decisions are inconvenient for you - you are essentially placing yourself below them and undermining your own legitimacy.
  Neutrality and objectivity may be a fiction, but it's one of the most useful fictions that have been invented in the last 500 years.
  1. appreciatorBus · 1790963574 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    [deleted] · 1790963778 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    NDlurker · 1790964458 · focus · HN ↗
    Who is defending themselves?
    appreciatorBus · 1790966674 · focus · HN ↗
    A liberal democracy was attacked by a force of ultra right wing totalitarian religious extremists. The democracy defended itself and routed the attackers. The ICC took the side of the attackers and issued an arrest warrant for the leader of the liberal democracy.
    NDlurker · 1790967798 · focus · HN ↗
    Huh, I haven't heard of that conflict. Where was that?
    Hikikomori · 1791022261 · focus · HN ↗
    A liberal democracy that carried out an ethnical cleansing at it's start so the right people would have majority once then made it a democracy.
    appreciatorBus · 1791026174 · focus · HN ↗
    It sounds like you have something against indigenous people practising decolonization and want to weaponize international institutions against them.
    defrost · 1791027428 · focus · HN ↗
    Lot of contenders for OG indigenous in various parts of the world, especially that bridge section between Africa and the rest of the planet. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tIdCsMufIY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tIdCsMufIY
    appreciatorBus · 1791037883 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s kind of like maybe the whole concept of indigeneity should just be a historical curiosity rather than something used to try to settle present day conflicts.
    Hikikomori · 1791032013 · focus · HN ↗
    You do realize the ICC issued warrants for Hamas leaders as well? They're not taking sides.
  2. jfengel · 1790963945 · focus · HN ↗
    America has apparently decided that the fiction is no longer useful. At least not to us.
    I can't say I'm happy about that, but it's a fact now. We cannot put that genie back in the bottle. Even a change of leadership soon will not alter the realization that it can change back on a moment's notice.
    So... we will find out.
    laimewhisps · 1790964089 · focus · HN ↗
    I think we will come to realize that liberalism died in Gaza. It exposed all of the hypocrisy that had always been there, it was just hidden under a mask of propaganda. Exposure to the raw events on social media allowed people to see the difference between what was happening and what we were being told. The mask came off and it's not going back on.
    anramon · 1790965100 · focus · HN ↗
    Less than "liberalism" I'd say "westernism". Liberalism out of direct western influence it's pretty much in line with what liberalism is supposed to be.
    mschuster91 · 1790967261 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    mindslight · 1790967816 · focus · HN ↗
    Hamas did expect it, just like their kindred warmongering spirits in Israel expect further retaliation. However, Palestinian civilians most certainly did not deserve it.
    slowin · 1790967990 · focus · HN ↗
    The Right to resist is a well-known cornerstone of liberalism, and yes Israel has been chipping away at it since its formation and Nakba.
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_resist" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_resist
    Sabinus · 1790979959 · focus · HN ↗
    The right to resist is not the right to commit deliberate civilian massacres.
    If October 7 had been directed against the West Bank settlers then we could get behind it, but instead it was just Hamas expressing their genocidal intent.
    laimewhisps · 1790981063 · focus · HN ↗
    Occupying forces are not civilians, that being said October 7th was primarily directed at the IDF. That Israel has mandatory conscription and deliberately inhabits stolen Palestinian land doesn't make the victims civilian. That's not even touching on the large number of people in Israel killed by the IDF under the Hannibal Directive. Deaths incorrectly attributed to Hamas:
    <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive#Claimed_use_of_the_Hannibal_Directive_on_7_October_2023" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannibal_Directive#Claimed_use...
    Cyph0n · 1790981650 · focus · HN ↗
    Firstly, you are aware that Gaza is & was under full blockade, right? And that there is no way to reach the West Bank from Gaza?
    Secondly, I can assure you that you would NOT have gotten behind anything Hamas did. You (not you specifically, just generally) wouldn’t have supported them because you’re conditioned to not support them. You are also more susceptible to propaganda than you think you are, and trust me, the media machine would have been in full gear regardless of what operation Hamas pulled off.
    It is easy to talk about theoreticals, but if you’re missing the ongoing reality, why do you think that you would handle the theoretical scenario any differently? Same idea applies to fiction. People jump to oppose the Empire, but had they been living in the Star Wars universe, odds are that Imperial propaganda would have been extremely effective.
    There is a recent saying on liberals, but I think it applies more broadly: “A liberal is someone who opposes every war except the current war, and supports all civil rights movements except the one that's going on right now.”
    g8oz · 1790968019 · focus · HN ↗
    Did the Palestinian children sniped in the head and chest have it coming as well?
    gamblor956 · 1790968416 · focus · HN ↗
    Did the 500+ teenagers and early-20-something women at the music festival Hamas stormed deserve to be raped, tortured, and murdered?
    mindslight · 1790968937 · focus · HN ↗
    The answer to both of these questions is a resounding "NO". But the question remains of why you have contrasted them as if they are in opposition.
    lossolo · 1790970886 · focus · HN ↗
    What's your point? Are you saying that if you kill my kids then I can kill you, then kill your kids, your wife, your parents, grandparents, their brothers and sisters and their kids? And that's ok and I'm better than you? meaning I'm good and you are evil? or what are you arguing?
    Cyph0n · 1790971509 · focus · HN ↗
    Generally, the point is my people are more valuable than your people. This is how Israel itself is able to maintain the injustice in Gaza and the WB. Heck, the IOF proudly operates under this model: a 1:50 combatant to civilian kill ratio is normal operating procedure.
    They applied the same concept in Iran during the 12 Day War, where they performed “targeted strikes” on apartment buildings housing nuclear scientists and other top officials, while killing 10s of civilians in the process. And then they (unironically) believed that Iranians would rise up against their government instead of rallying around the flag, at least temporarily.
    gamblor956 · 1790976101 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    laimewhisps · 1790976372 · focus · HN ↗
    What are you talking about? Israel spent decades ethnically cleansing Palestinians and they're still doing it, at scale. They had already murdered orders of magnitude more Palestinians than Israelis killed by the IDF and Hamas combined on Oct 7th.
    gamblor956 · 1791046166 · focus · HN ↗
    Ah, so for you this was never really about what's happening right now. This is about the "decades" that Israel has been "ethnically cleansing" a group of people that have been doing their best to wipe out Israel since its formation.
    The antisemites have been making this argument for decades. It's a popular meme on 8chan and the Daily Stormer. The only problem with the claim is that Israel's military actions against Palestine were restrained until Oct 7th. But then again, murdering 1000+ people in cold blood tends to make the survivors do irrational things to the attackers.
    Maybe Palestine should refrain from violent activity for a period of a year, which is longer than either Hamas or the PLO have ever managed to go without launching terrorist attacks against Israel, and we can talk about "peace" in the Middle East.
    laimewhisps · 1791048013 · focus · HN ↗
    Israel was created through ethnic cleansing, this is all very well documented: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
    [deleted] · 1790993088 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    gamblor956 · 1790968324 · focus · HN ↗
    Exactly. Oct 7th was Israel's 9/11.
    Hamas had the option to attack military targets. Instead they targeted a music festival full of civilians, murdering almost everyone, and raping most of the women there. (For those who doubt, there are a lot of sources. CNN, BBC, Al Jezeera, and even the UN's own fact-finding mission all confirm the rapes and murders.)
    Dylan16807 · 1790973810 · focus · HN ↗
    > Oct 7th was Israel's 9/11.
    And the way the US reacted to 9/11 was an enormous mistake.
    Cyph0n · 1790969886 · focus · HN ↗
    This is a 2024 comment. We are past these talking points.
    Do you know what Israel did and still is doing in Gaza (and the West Bank)? It goes way beyond “retaliation”. A genocidal, algorithmic rampage that spared no one. “Collateral damage” taken to its extreme. It is a testbed for techniques to crush armed liberation movements. For the US in particular, this is how the 2nd amendment can be rendered obsolete.
    I am curious. Would you empathize more if Gaza was a Ukrainian enclave in Russia that tried to break free from its status as a blockaded strip of land? Is the involvement of non-white victims the problem? Perhaps it’s because there are Palestinians involved? Maybe if this were a fictional struggle set in some fictional universe involving some kind of “rebel” group; is that what it takes to spare an ounce of empathy?
    RobotToaster · 1790988427 · focus · HN ↗
    This war was started by Israel in 1948
    mindslight · 1790968673 · focus · HN ↗
    That hypocrisy has been there for decades if you had looked, so it seems wrong to consider the catalyst as being "Gaza" rather than things like increased alternative media from digital communications, influence campaigns, etc. Also you're drastically overstating things by balling it up as "liberalism" rather than say the US-as-hegemon world order.
  3. nazgulsenpai · 1790965076 · focus · HN ↗
    As an American, I don't think anyone informed has ever perceived the US as neutral, at least not since the 20th century. We have veto power with control of the US dollar, the ability of the US military to engage in any part of the world (historically, much less so in current year), and being a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
    In my opinion, the sanctioning of these judges simply comes across as a petty tantrum of a nation in decline, using the remaining tools it has at it's disposal to try to get its way.
    edit: typo
  4. gradus_ad · 1790965668 · focus · HN ↗
    As you say neutrality is a fiction.
    Everything the US does and has done is aimed at defending itself and its interests, which includes its allies, as it should, and as it must.
    The extent to which these actions appeared neutral was just a product of the overwhelming power of the US and overwhelming unity - by virtue of deference - prevalent among the Western powers during the Cold War, in the shadow of a common enemy.
    Global neutral institutions exist on a fictional foundation that becomes thinner by the day. For substantial matters on which there is no rational answer, the only solution is the exercise of power.
  5. Amezarak · 1790965750 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    anigbrowl · 1790967213 · focus · HN ↗
    The ICC was set up specifically to prevent national-scale criminals from hiding behind vague concepts of sovereignty and immunity, such that once someone scaled or inherited the heights of power they effectively had free rein to do whatever they want without fear of repercussions. The incentivized dictatorship as internal opposition was the only legal check on atrocity.
    Amezarak · 1790967948 · focus · HN ↗
    Right. Except national sovereignty exists for a reason. Now an unaccountable international court can hold you liable for doing things they don't like. You didn't solve the problem. You just added an extra institution that will pursue these "aims" in a partisan and particular fashion and will be responsible for its own atrocities sooner or later.
    tmp10423288442 · 1790970900 · focus · HN ↗
    But the crucial point that makes the ICC work is that a country needs to submit to its jurisdiction. Once they went beyond that, they destroyed the entire legitimacy of the court. Also, they refused to arrest Putin even after he was sanctioned by the ICC, despite Russia being a formal party to the Rome Statute, so they're either hypocrites or cowards.
    nostrademons · 1790967851 · focus · HN ↗
    The grievance you express here basically comes down to "Who decides?" The reason the ICC is objectionable to the U.S. (and China, and Russia, and India - there are a bunch of other non-signatories of the ICC agreement, and I'm not picking on the U.S. here, more trying to illustrate a dynamic) is because it sets up a justice system that is not accountable to the U.S. political process.
    The reason I'm saying that this undermines U.S. soft power and legitimacy is because it shouldn't matter who decides. If your country actually stands for freedom, justice, and universal human rights, then another human working from those principles would reach the same conclusion you do. That's what makes them universal human rights. So the implicit message when judges are sanctioned because other nations disagree with their right to make decisions is that maybe those rights aren't universal after all, and that some people's rights are more right than others. It's telegraphing insecurity - someone who knows they are in the right will happily let others make the decision, because they trust that others will come to the same conclusion as them.
    The rest of your post also comes from that frame. You may actually be right - I acknowledged that neutrality and objectivity is likely a fiction. The thing is, that fiction underpins the ideas of rule of law, democracy, freedom, justice, and peace. All of those stem from a basic trust that your fellow humans, once they are trained to think in those terms, will come to the same conclusions that you do. So yes, perhaps all of international relations is power players advancing their own interests - but once everybody believes that to be true, we will lose rule of law, democracy, freedom, justice, and peace.
    Amezarak · 1790968078 · focus · HN ↗
    > If your country actually stands for freedom, justice, and universal human rights, then another human working from those principles would reach the same conclusion you do.
    These principles are not objective moral axioms that we can all reason from.
    We decide, as sovereign countries, what they mean to us, how they should be implemented, or even if we (as a country) don't value this or that. There is no magical tablet of Rights that we can spiritually commune with to determine "X is a right but Y is not." These are all politically and culturally determined.
    So it absolutely matters, very, very much who decides, and millions have died as a consequence of those decisions. It does not make much sense for anyone to hand those decisions over to the ICC. Unless and until we have a single global culture and moral framework the whole idea is absurd...except as a vehicle for the power plays of different factions at the international politics level.
    Because they are politically and culturally determined, because they are not something that people are just born with the innate ability to find, is exactly why handing decisions over to people belonging to different cultures/societies/institutions is highly dangerous. The only way to actually protect our rights is to not accede to institutions like the ICC. It's absurd to say that because billions of people could be trained to believe in things they don't believe in we must act as though the things they don't believe in are universally true, or else we will lose our freedoms. We can simply live in sovereign countries that do hold these beliefs - and as for the countries that do things we find revolting, we can pressure them or ignore them or war with them as we see fit and as has been done since the dawn of time. But ultimately you have to accept that different cultures have different values, even if you're one of those that want to do something about it. You can't just stick your head in the sand and pretend the ICC actually adheres to these ideals.
  6. tmp10423288442 · 1790970786 · focus · HN ↗
    In this case, the US and Israel were never parties to the ICC, so the ICC was never neutral with respect to them. If they had submitted to the ICC, I think your point would be valid.
    nostrademons · 1790972336 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm making a subtly different point. Pre-2002, the U.S. filled the role that the ICC does now. We would work multilaterally with a lot of different countries - many of whom are signatories of the Rome Statute now - to send UN peacekeeping forces to conflict areas and bring the perpetrators of genocide and crimes against humanity to justice. Post-2002 (and there was a lot going around in 2002-2004 to tarnish the U.S's international reputation besides the ICC), we became one of several parties that didn't sign the ICC. And now we seem to be actively retaliating against ICC judges, and not even for their decisions - this case is because the judge held that a decision could be made.
    A lot of Americans believe that power is winning. There's a fight, and the side that wins is the more powerful one. But true power comes from not having anyone question your decisions, such that there is never a fight in the first place. And that's the dynamic I'm commenting on. Eisenhower was a powerful president even though he started no new wars (indeed, he ended the Korean war). With 70%+ approval ratings domestically and unquestioned economic supremacy abroad, he didn't need to.
4. MSFT_Edging · 1790963207 · focus · HN ↗
  > Falling victim to de-banking alone
  This is especially ironic given how many Trump supporters had "de-banking" as their main issue.
  IIRC most of them were "debanked" due to crypto fraud or other financial crimes.
  1. DaSHacka · 1790963862 · focus · HN ↗
    > IIRC most of them were "debanked" due to crypto fraud or other financial crimes.
    How would you even know this? Was there a poll done across every Trump supporter where they admitted to committing financial fraud? Do you mean to say Trump's 'pundits' and not his 'supporters'?
    Also, the majority of pushback to debanking that I've seen among MAGA types I know IRL is more centered around the 2022 trucker protests and the debatably unjust reaction from the Canadian government.
    MSFT_Edging · 1790965601 · focus · HN ↗
    It was a loud handful of guys, not a broad swath of vaguely republican types getting debanked.
  2. throwawayfifo · 1790973116 · focus · HN ↗
    This is doubly "ironic" considering the left was all for debanking right-wing dissenters (Freedom Convoy) when they were in power.
    MSFT_Edging · 1791202603 · focus · HN ↗
    What was the "freedom convoy" dissenting from?
    Vaccine mandates, for a virus that was doing multiple 9/11's daily, by a bunch of guys who sit in their trucks all day.
    Change your diaper, dude.
  3. mindslight · 1790985794 · focus · HN ↗
    The entire destructionist movement is based around channeling frustrations on very real issues into mere ways of making money for Dear Leader. When you zoom in, even core issues like immigration reform fit the pattern - still giving a pass to the major employers of illegal labor, modulo the policy-performative vice signalling of torture camps. Grumpism is effectively just one big arbitrage of ideals. In a sane world, the people who care most about the issues "championed" by the destructionists would be the loudest critics of them, as it's their political capital that is being destroyed! But apparently most of them are too busy "winning" to perform one iota of self-reflection.
5. koolba · 1790963244 · focus · HN ↗
  > Regardless of what one personally thinks about the ICC, this isn’t a good look for neither the US nor Europe.
  > For the U.S., because sanctioning an “unpleasant”, but in essence harmless individual (geopolitically speaking) is ridiculous. Falling victim to de-banking alone can really ruin one’s life.
  Not a good look sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s effective over the near term. Especially if they keep expanding this to include more of the ICC bench.
  That’s the whole point of such sanctions anyway. It might feel different because it’s a Canadian judge and not a Russian oligarch. But at the core the USA wants to put pressure on something and the means is indirectly applied to an individual.
  1. microtonal · 1790966441 · focus · HN ↗
    Not a good look sure, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s effective over the near term. Especially if they keep expanding this to include more of the ICC bench.
    Yes, effective in speeding up decoupling of the EU banking system from the US and quickly reducing the use of the systems of Mastercard and Visa. Last year's sanctions on ICC individuals already had a large effect. For instance, the fear of further dependence on US companies has already caused blocking of the sale of the Dutch company Solvinity (who maintain the Dutch digital ID systems) to Kyndryl and has put some countries on the path of moving off Office 365, Exchange and even Windows.
    It's just insane stupidity by the US administration. It's very unlikely that an US official would ever be arrested for the ICC, allies wouldn't go there. So, it's just putting Europe on a path to purchase less and less from US service/software companies to protect Benny, who could simply avoid being arrested by not going to a country that joined the ICC.
6. dmitrygr · 1790963364 · focus · HN ↗
  > Regardless of what one personally thinks about the ICC, this isn’t a good look
  Legitimate question. Why should a third party (whom I do not respect)’s opinion of me matter to me? Do you care what my cat thinks about you?
  1. [deleted] · 1790963516 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  2. rwmj · 1790963643 · focus · HN ↗
    Depending on where you live, your country may or may not have decided to give legal force to ICC rulings by joining the Rome Statute treaty (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rome_Statute). If you live in a democracy, this was decided by democratic means, and can be changed the same way. This is not a unique situation, there will be many, many other treaties that your country has decided to sign up to.
    dmitrygr · 1790963835 · focus · HN ↗
    Luckily my country is not a party. I don’t want my government (that I elect) outsourcing any decision-making power to a body I do not elect (ICC). As a voter this is a hard NO for me.
    rwmj · 1790964037 · focus · HN ↗
    That's fine, it's democracy in action. I don't know why particularly you'd be worried about ICC rulings since they apply to very grave crimes: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the "crime of aggression" (using large scale military forces to invade other countries). Hope you've not been doing any of those!
    selectodude · 1790964641 · focus · HN ↗
    I would guess he supports those who do.
    dmitrygr · 1790976027 · focus · HN ↗
    You wonder why I wouldn’t want unelected bureaucrats deciding my fate? I guess you never lived in USSR. The question is hilariously naïve.
    mindslight · 1790986321 · focus · HN ↗
    Where is this magical land you live where your fate does not depend on unelected bureaucrats?
    and in reply to your dead reply - Argumentum ad absurdum: what I did to highlight the ridiculousness of your comment. You yourself chose an impossible standard of rejecting "unelected bureaucrats". You could have chosen to frame your argument in terms of degrees of democratic accountability. However, you didn't.
    dmitrygr · 1790987438 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    buran77 · 1790966036 · focus · HN ↗
    The answer is staring you in the face but I'm not surprised you never bothered even to scratch the surface. The ICC doesn't replace national courts. Actually it encourages them to do their job. But sometimes the national courts can't settle it. For example the biggest point of an international court is that they should be able to settle international disputes. Get it? Inter-national. That's when the two parties are different countries, each with their own elected representatives and their own judges to decide in each country's favor. So what do you do then? You go to an international body which has no intrinsic bias or conflict of interest, ideally.
    I see how you're trying to twist this into an act of "sovereignty" but not signing up is usually a sign that the respective country is a common perpetrator of exactly the type of crime the ICC would convict (war crimes, genocide, that type of thing). And wouldn't you know it, just check out the list ;).
    flyinglizard · 1790966925 · focus · HN ↗
    ICC is trying to get the elected officials in Israel on trial for enacting a defensive policy they think is vital for the country, and overwhelmingly supported by their public.
    tmnvix · 1790967933 · focus · HN ↗
    A 'defensive policy' put into practice in the territory of another state that is a signatory.
    If you commit crimes in another state, expect to be judged according to their system of law (which in this case includes the ICC).
    flyinglizard · 1790968275 · focus · HN ↗
    Is Hamas (which are the only government in Gaza) a signatory of the ICC convention?
    tmnvix · 1790968735 · focus · HN ↗
    There is a difference between a state and its governing party (or parties).
    Also worth noting that the ICC issued arrest warrants for (now dead) Hamas leaders.
    rwmj · 1790968742 · focus · HN ↗
    The State of Palestine is. Hamas is more like a political party, so your question is like asking if the Conservative Party is a member of the ICC, it makes no sense.
    flyinglizard · 1790969101 · focus · HN ↗
    Hamas is a party in the West Bank but in Gaza it is the government.
    rwmj · 1790971745 · focus · HN ↗
    Being a political party and not a state, Hamas cannot enter into treaties, no more than the local chess club can enter into a treaty. Depending on the political processes of Palestine (of which I have no idea) it might be able to withdraw The State of Palestine from the Rome Statute, but it hasn't done that so far.
    buran77 · 1790973050 · focus · HN ↗
    Good company, eh? The US, Israel, terrorist organization Hamas. That's what you're saying right?
    You know you hit rock bottom when your defense is saying "the terrorist organization also does it". But I have full confidence in you that you will manage to dig yourself even deeper.
    flyinglizard · 1790974784 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm sure Israel would love to have the Swiss as their neighbors but it's Hamas they're dealing with. And it's not a "terrorist organization", in Gaza it is a government that commits terror. The ministry of education or health in Gaza are Hamas. The police are Hamas. The tax collectors are Hamas.
    laimewhisps · 1790975113 · focus · HN ↗
    Israel should have the Swiss for their neighbors but they decided to ethnically cleanse and colonize Palestine instead of creating Israel in Europe where it belongs. Palestinians are fighting for their lives and their land, Israel is fighting to ethnically cleanse the indigenous people off the land they've been living on continuously for thousands of years.
    flyinglizard · 1790982328 · focus · HN ↗
    That's a crazy take on history!
    1. Around half of Israelis are not from Europe, but from Arab countries (Sephardic). Iraq, Libya, Morocco, Syria etc.
    2. Jews have always lived on this land, for as long as history is recorded. Safed, Tiberias and Jerusalem have had continuous Jewish presence for thousands of years.
    3. The land belonged to the British mandate and before to the Ottomans, never a self-governing Palestinian group (which are just Arabs).
    4. Palestinians are not fighting for their lives and land; that has been offered many times before, starting in the 1930s with various plans, then with the British partition plan, then many other times culminating in Oslo accords and later in the Gaza disengagement. They could have had one state, two states, autonomy, whatever they wanted. They refused all of those, because their STATED goal is to completely and thoroughly remove Jews from that land, which is considered holy to Islam (Al Aqsa mosque is built on the ruins of the Jewish temple mount). Now when Islam came into being, around the sixth century, Jews were a few thousand years old already. So think about this when you try to attribute the land to this group or that.
    Throughly fascinating history for those who want to learn it - <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwN0K2ZSAoQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwN0K2ZSAoQ
    laimewhisps · 1790982778 · focus · HN ↗
    Palestinians were cleansed off their indigenous land via the Nakba and Zionist aggression since then. I never said all Jews in Palestine are Ashkenazi, I said Israel, the European colony, should be in Europe. Ashkenazis have no genetic ties to Palestine:
    <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3543" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3543
    berschatu · 1791156723 · focus · HN ↗
    > Ashkenazis have no genetic ties to Palestine
    This is a racist line of reasoning. By your logic Arabs have no genetic ties to Europe therefore they should go back to the Middle East.
    Sabinus · 1791002349 · focus · HN ↗
    Since we can't wind the clock back 8 decades and Israel exists now and has Hamas as neighbour we actually need to engage with the reality. Instead of tacitly arguing that the nuclear armed state established because it's citizens were persecuted for centuries needs to dissolve itself and go back to Europe. Also over half the Jews in Israel are from the Middle East.
    Do you think both sides should accept (and we in the West aggressively incentivise) a two state deal and get on with it, or do you think the Palestinians should fight on to get the whole of Palestine back?
    laimewhisps · 1791002683 · focus · HN ↗
    We actually can wind the clock back 8 decades. I think you’ll find a lot of support for this inevitability in the US. I support a single Palestinian state.
    Do you see how you’re arguing based on “centuries of persecution” (not by the Palestinians) but the Palestinians aren’t even offered 80 years of consideration? This blatant and illogical framing is what is being rejected by post-internet generations.
    flyinglizard · 1791015754 · focus · HN ↗
    Why this arbitrary timeframe of “8 decades”? Why not 6 (to Jordanian and Egyotian control of West Bank and Gaza) or 9 (to British control) or 11 (Ottoman - Turkish - control) or 300 (Jewish control)?
    [deleted] · 1791043114 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    laimewhisps · 1791043184 · focus · HN ↗
    It’s not arbitrary at all, that’s when Israel was created via ethnic cleansing.
    flyinglizard · 1791047698 · focus · HN ↗
    Israel was NOT created through ethnic cleansing. It was a declared a state first, and only then attacked by the Arabs in Palestine and around it, which led to whatever narrative of history you wish to accept. But at the time of the Nakba Israel was already a done deal, legally speaking.
    Now, one must ask what would have happened to the Jews in Palestine had they lost that war...
    laimewhisps · 1791047915 · focus · HN ↗
    That's incorrect: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakba
7. recroad · 1790965747 · focus · HN ↗
  Why is she unpleasant?
  1. anigbrowl · 1790967575 · focus · HN ↗
    The use of quotes indicates that that's the US perception of her under the current administration. You can read the relevant executive order/public statements if you need insight into why Trump and his appointees feel that way.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.